Wamalwa (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Wilycster Noel Nyongesa) v Kenya Union of Savings & Credit Co-operatives Ltd & another
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant had made out a case for extension of time to file an appeal out of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained and whether the applicant took prerequisite steps
The application was dismissed; the applicant failed to substantiate the reasons for delay and did not demonstrate vital prerequisite steps such as applying for certified proceedings and copying the request to the respondent.
The court applied the Salat principles: extension is equitable and discretionary, requiring a satisfactory explanation for delay, absence of prejudice, and promptness. The applicant claimed deaths, illness and financial hardship, but produced no evidence of a request for certified copies of proceedings copied to the respondent as required by Rule 84. Granting leave would be speculation about a genuine desire to appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under Rule 4 is an equitable discretionary remedy, not a right; the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay and demonstrating prerequisite steps toward the appeal.
- The Court of Appeal's discretion to extend time under Rule 4 is unfettered and exercised case by case.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 19th February 2026 dismissed with no order on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Lands Court
- Kakamega ELCA No. E007 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Leave to file an appeal out of time against the judgment of the Environment and Lands Court delivered on 25th June 2025
No evidence of a request for certified copies of proceedings copied to the respondent; no demonstration of vital prerequisite steps; genuine desire to appeal not discernible
Costs
No order on costs, since the 1st Respondent only filed its submissions on the morning of the hearing
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Court is not satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for the exercise of its discretion in his favour.
The application dated 19th December 2025 is dismissed with no order on costs since the 1st Respondent only filed its submissions on the morning of the hearing.
extension of time is not right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court
He has not demonstrated that he took vital steps which are prerequisites to an intended appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of the application stated inconsistently within the ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wamalwa (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Wilycster Noel Nyongesa) v Kenya Union of Savings & Credit Co-operatives Ltd & another", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E027 of 2026 (formerly Kisumu Civil Application No. E064 of 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2034/eng@2026-05-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.